alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020339EN.01001602.xml

| 12.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/16

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2020 — Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports v EUIPO — Anadeco Gestion (sflooring)

(Case T-533/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark sflooring - Earlier national word mark T-FLOORING - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark - Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 47(2) and (3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2020/C 339/20)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda (Sintra, Portugal) (represented by: D. Martins Pereira Soares, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Anadeco Gestion, SA (Cartagena, Spain) (represented by: J. Erdozain Lopez and J. Galan Lopez, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 May 2019 (Case R 1870/2018-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Anadeco Gestion and Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 May 2019 (Case R 1870/2018-4); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 20 May 2019 (Case R 1870/2018-4);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders EUIPO and Anadeco Gestion, SA to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda before the General Court and the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders EUIPO and Anadeco Gestion, SA to bear their own costs and each to pay half of the costs incurred by Artur Florêncio & Filhos, Affsports Lda before the General Court and the Board of Appeal.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE PEREZ TOLENTINO; BEATRIZ

ARAUZA PEREZ,

 Petitioners,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 11-72514

Agency Nos. A075-725-871

A075-725-872

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 14, 2013** 

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Perez Tolentino and Beatriz Arauza Perez, natives and citizens of

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order

denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings based on ineffective

FILED

AUG 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-72514

assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for

abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen, and review de novo questions

of law. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny

the petition for review. 

The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to

reopen where they failed to establish prejudice arising from the alleged ineffective

assistance by their former counsel. See id. at 793-94 (“[P]rejudice results when the

performance of counsel was so inadequate that it may have affected the outcome of

the proceedings.” (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

It follows that petitioners’ due process claim, which rests entirely on the

failure to reopen, fails. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000)

(requiring error and substantial prejudice to prevail on a due process claim).

In light of this disposition, we do not reach petitioners’ remaining

contentions. 

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

        In connection with the Quarterly Report of Bluefly, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melissa
Payner-Gregor, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

        1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

        2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Melissa Payner-Gregor
-------------------------

Melissa Payner-Gregor
Chief Executive Officer
May 3, 2005
EXHIBIT 11

CURAGEN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY

COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE

(unaudited)





|                                                                                          | Three Months Ended

June 30, | Six Months EndedJune 30,
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------- | ------------------------
|                                                                                          |                              |                         
|                                                                                          | 2000                         | 1999                    
|                                                                                          |                              |                         
|Net loss before income taxes and minority interest                                        | $(6,612,852)                 | $(5,925,143)            
|Income tax benefit                                                                        | 350,000                      | --                      
|Minority interest                                                                         | (18,235)                     | --                      
|                                                                                          |                              |                         
|Net loss                                                                                  | $(6,281,087)                 | $(5,925,143)            
|                                                                                          |                              |                         
|Basic and diluted net loss per share                                                      | $ (0.16)                     | $ (0.22)                
|                                                                                          |                              |                         
|Weighted average number of shares used in computing

basic and diluted net loss per share | 38,514,272                   | 26,818,474              
|                                                                                          |                              |
# C_2019372EN.01001202.xml

| 4.11.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 372/12 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | -------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha (Spain) lodged on 11 July 2019 — SR v Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real (Case C-534/19) (2019/C 372/12) Language of the case: Spanish Referring court Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Castilla-La Mancha Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: SR Defendant: Subdelegación del Gobierno en Ciudad Real Question referred Is an interpretation such as that set out in judgments of the Spanish Supreme Court No 191/2019 of 19 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5607/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:580), and No 257/2019 of 27 February 2019, appeal in cassation 5809/2017 (ECLI:ES:TS:2019:663), according to which, through an interpretation of Directive 2001/40/EC, ( 1 ) it is possible to come to the conclusion that any third-country national holding a long-term residence permit who has committed an offence punishable by a sentence of at least one year in duration can and should be ‘automatically’ removed, that is to say, [without] needing to give any consideration to his personal, family, social or employment circumstances, compatible with Article 12 of Council [Directive] 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents, ( 2 ) and with — inter alia — the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 7 December 2017 (Case C-636/16 ( 3 )) and of 8 December 2011 (Case C-371/08 ( 4 ))? ( 1 )  Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals (OJ 2001 L 149, p. 34). ( 2 )  OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44. ( 3 )  Judgment of 7 December 2017, López Pastuzano (C-636/16, EU:C:2017:949). ( 4 )  Judgment of 8 December 2011, Ziebell (C-371/08, EU:C:2011:809).

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

The National Science Board's Committee on Oversight hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business as follows:

# TIME AND DATE: 

Tuesday, July 27, 2021, from 2:00-3:00 p.m. EDT.

# PLACE:

This meeting will be held by teleconference through the National Science Foundation.

# STATUS:

Open.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

The agenda of the teleconference is: Chair's opening remarks; Committee review and discussion of draft Merit Review Digest, Committee of Visitors (COV) summaries, and potential topics for NSB's Overview; discussion of goals and metrics that could help NSF and NSB assess progress in Broader Impact areas; and prepare for presentation by Dr. Shirley Malcom, Director of AAAS's SEA Change program, and former NSB member.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Point of contact for this meeting is: Ann Bushmiller, *abushmil@nsf.gov,* 703/292-7000. To listen to this teleconference, members of the public must send an email to *nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov* at least 24 hours prior to the teleconference. The National Science Board Office will send requesters a toll-free dial-in number. Meeting information and updates may be found at the National Science Board website at *www.nsf.gov/​nsb.*

*Authority:* National Science Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1862n-5), and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b.

Chris Blair,

Executive Assistant to the National Science Board Office.

[FR Doc. 2021-15804 Filed 7-28-21; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
----

| Company                                                                                           | State      of Incorporation |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                                                                                              |                        |
| Young      Dental Manufacturing I, LLC                                                            | Missouri                    |
| YI      Europe, Limited                                                                           | England                     |
| Young      Acquisitions Company                                                                   | Missouri                    |
|           Panoramic      Rental Corp            | Missouri                    |
| Athena      Technology, LLC                                                                       | Missouri                    |
| Young      PS Acquisitions, LLC                                                                   | Delaware                    |
| Young      Colorado, LLC                                                                          | Delaware                    |
| Young      OS, LLC                                                                                | Delaware                    |
| YI      Ventures, LLC                                                                             | Delaware                    |
|           Mid-West      Dental Laboratory, Inc. | Indiana                     |
| Young      Microbrush LLC                                                                         | Delaware                    |
| Young      Microbrush International, LLC                                                          | Delaware                    |
|           Young      Microbrush Ireland, Ltd.   | Ireland                     |
| Sav-A-Life,      LLC                                                                              | Illinois                    |
| 2720      Corporate Parkway, LLC                                                                  | Illinois                    |

----
Promissory Note, dated December 3, 2009



 Exhibit 10.2 
 PROMISSORY NOTE 
  

			
	 U.S. $24,043,000.00
	  	December 3, 2009

 FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, ARLINGTON PARK RACECOURSE, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company (“Maker”), hereby promises to pay to the order of THE DUCHOSSOIS GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation (“Payee”, which term shall also include any successors and assigns of The Duchossois
Group, Inc. and any subsequent holder of this Promissory Note (as it may be hereafter amended, supplemented or modified from time to time, the “Note”)) the principal amount of Twenty Four Million Forty Three Thousand AND NO/100
DOLLARS ($24,043,000.00) (the “Principal Amount”), until paid as set forth in this Note. The Principal Amount shall not bear interest. 
 Maker shall pay in full to Payee the entire outstanding balance of the Principal Amount on May 15, 2010 (the “Maturity Date”), as well as other sums then due and owing to
Payee under this Note. 
 All payments on account of the Principal Amount, including the indebtedness evidenced by this
Note, shall be applied first to any unpaid costs (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys fees) due hereunder and the remainder to the outstanding principal balance of the Principal Amount. 
 If default shall occur in the payment, when due, of the Principal Amount and continue for five (5) days after written notice from Payee
to Maker (an “Event of Default”), then, to the extent permitted by law, the Maker shall pay to Payee, along with any other amounts due hereunder, a late penalty equal to five percent (5%) of the then late amounts. 

Maker hereby waives presentment, protest and demand, notice of protest, demand and dishonor and non-payment of this Note, and expressly
agrees that this Note, or any payment hereunder, may be extended from time to time without in any way affecting the liability of Maker. 
 Any notice, demand, request or other communication desired to be given or required pursuant to the terms hereof shall be in writing and shall be delivered by personal service or sent by registered or
certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in the Purchase Agreement or to such other address as the parties hereto may designate in writing from time to time. 
 This Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Note as of the date and
year first written above. 
  

			
	 ARLINGTON PARK RACECOURSE, LLC,
 an Illinois limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 /s/ R.A. Arnold

	Name:	 	R.A. Arnold
	Title:	 	President Arlington Park
#### Harry Lockwood *vs.*Walter W. I. Bock.

April 8, 1891.

Appeal — Order Refusing to Vacate Former Order. — An appeal will not lie from an order of the district court refusing to vacate and set aside its order previously made for judgment on the pleadings.

Motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal from the orders of the district court for Eamsey county, *Kerr,*J., presiding, which are stated in the opinion.

*Brown & Schrader,*for appellant.

*Stringer & Seymour,*for respondent.

Collins, J.1

This appeal is from two orders of the same import practically, — one being an order for judgment on the pleadings, in plaintiff’s favor; the other, an order refusing to set it aside. The respondent moves to dismiss on the ground that neither of said orders is appealable. It is well settled that the first-mentioned, ordering judgment on the pleadings, is not. *Lamb*v. *McCanna,*14 Minn. 385, (513.) The one subsequently made, whereby defendant’s motion to vacate a non-appealable order was denied, is clearly within the rule stated in *Brown*v. *Minn. Thresher Mfg. Co.,*44 Minn. 322, (46 N. W. Rep. 560,) and the appeal must be dismissed. The motion to vacate and set aside the order for judgment was superfluous, and, if an appeal could be permitted from an order denying *74such a motion, there would exist no possible reason for making or adhering to the rule established in *Lamb*v. *McCanna,*supra.

Appeal dismissed.

1

 Vanderburgh, J., took no part in this case. Mitchell, J., being absent when this decision was made and filed, took no part therein.
# C_2019148EN.01005401.xml

| 29.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/54

---

Action brought on 20 February 2019 — Clem & Jo Optique v EUIPO — C&A (C&J)

(Case T-125/19)

(2019/C 148/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Clem & Jo Optique SARL (Cormicy, France) (represented by: N. Hausmann, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant: Applicant before the General Court

Trade mark at issue: Application for EU word mark C&J — Application for registration No 15 912 041

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 December 2018 in Case R 1252/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should annul the contested decision.

Plea in law

| — | The applicant company argues that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks C&A and C&J. |
| --- | --- |

—

The applicant company argues that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks C&A and C&J.

---
# C_2019328EN.01007202.xml

| 30.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/72 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/72

---

Action brought on 12 August 2019 — Julius Sämann v EUIPO — Maharishi Vedic University (Representation of a tree)

(Case T-559/19)

(2019/C 328/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Julius Sämann Ltd (Thayngen, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Parrish, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Maharishi Vedic University Ltd (Mgarr, Malta)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: Application for European Union figurative mark in colours white, brown, yellow and shades of blue (Representation of a tree) — Application for registration No 15 666 639

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 May 2019 in Case R 1743/2018-1

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | uphold the applicant’s application; |
| --- | --- |

—

uphold the applicant’s application;

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the applicant’s costs of this application and the proceedings before the Office.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**EXHIBIT 15****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**The Supervisory Board of SAP AG:We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-60399,333-65083, 333-30380, 333-41762, 333-63496, 333-63464 and 333-102564) on Form S-8 of SAP AG of ourreports dated April 2, 2007, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SAP AG as ofDecember 31, 2006 and 2005, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equityand comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period endedDecember 31, 2006, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, which reportsappear in SAP AG’s 2006 Annual Report on Form 20-F, and to the reference to our firm under theheading “Selected Financial Data” in such 2006 Annual Report.Our reportdated April 2, 2007, on the consolidated financial statements, contains an explanatoryparagraph that states that SAP adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 158,*Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans*as of December 31,2006, that SAP adopted the fair value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as requiredby SFAS No. 123 (R), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1, 2006, and that SAP changed its method for determiningcertain investments to be classified as current assets in 2006.KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft